G.R. No. L-15707; October 31, 1960
JESUS GUARIÑA, DOLORES GUARIÑA and the late AMANDO GUARIÑA, survived by ELAVIA, MANUEL I, MANUEL II, AMANDO I, AMANDO II, and RAMON, all surnamed GUARIÑA, plaintiffs-appellants, vs. AGUEDA GUARIÑA-CASAS, MARIO GUARIÑA, JR., CONCEPCION GUARIÑA-RIVERA, ENCARNACION GUARIÑA-ASCONA, LOURDES GUARIÑA-MADRID and AGUEDA DIA VDA DE GUARIÑA, defendants-appellees.

FACTS

In May 1956, the plaintiffs sued the widow and legitimate children of the late Mario Guariña, Sr., who died intestate in 1935, demanding partition of his properties. They alleged they were the acknowledged illegitimate children and grandchildren of Mario Guariña, Sr. The defendants denied this relationship. After the plaintiffs presented their evidence, the Court of First Instance of Sorsogon dismissed the case, ruling the documents were legally insufficient to prove acknowledgment. The plaintiffs appealed.
The plaintiffs presented three authentic Spanish documents (Exhibits B, C, and D) as evidence of acknowledgment. Exhibit C, dated October 1902, is a compromise agreement in a court case between Mario Guariña and Eduvigis Huertas (the mother) and her parents. In its first paragraph, Mario acknowledged Amando, Jesus, and Dolores as his natural children and promised to make formal acknowledgment soon. He also agreed to pay them a monthly pension and donated a parcel of land. The agreement was signed by the parties and by Judge A.C. Carson, who later took steps to implement it. Exhibit B, dated February 18, 1903, is a notarial document where Mario expressly acknowledged the three as his natural children. Exhibit D, dated June 7, 1903, is a document where Mario transferred another piece of land to Eduvigis and the children because the land in Exhibit C was appraised at less than the promised value.
The trial court found that since the children were minors when Exhibit B was executed, and Article 133 of the Civil Code required judicial approval for acknowledgment of a minor unless made in a birth certificate or will, the acknowledgment was insufficient due to lack of such approval.

ISSUE

Whether the documents presented by the plaintiffs (Exhibits B, C, and D) constitute a valid acknowledgment of their status as natural children of Mario Guariña, Sr., despite the alleged lack of judicial approval required under Article 133 of the Civil Code for acknowledgment of minors.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s dismissal and held that the plaintiffs are acknowledged natural children (and grandchildren) of Mario Guariña, Sr., entitled to their shares in his estate.
The Court ruled that the trial judge took a restricted view by focusing only on Exhibit B and ignoring Exhibit C. Exhibit C was a court-approved compromise agreement where Mario acknowledged the children as his natural children. Judge Carson’s signature and his subsequent actions to implement the agreement constituted tacit approval of the acknowledgment. Considering the liberality of the Civil Code towards voluntary recognition and the purpose of the New Civil Code to further liberalize it, the documents substantially satisfied the requisites of Articles 131 and 133 of the Civil Code.
Furthermore, the Court held that even assuming a lack of judicial approval under Article 133, this defect is not available to the recognizing parent but is for the benefit of the minor. The lack of approval can be cured if the minor, upon reaching majority, consents to the acknowledgment. In this case, the plaintiffs, after reaching majority, kept the acknowledgment papers, used the Guariña surname, and now claim their rights as acknowledged children. This conduct amounts to consent and cures any absence of court confirmation.
The case was remanded to the Sorsogon court for further proceedings in partition.